America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 20 years ago by Gene363. 16 replies replies.
California Grocery Strike
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Gene363 Offline
#1 Posted: Fri, Feb 20 2004, 4:55 AM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,838
In another thread, RickMaven said in part:

“…the grocery strike in calif is not about wages, it is to protect the workers from losing their medical benifits. they have been out almost 4 months without pay and if they lose, what group will be next to lose medical benifits. maybe you?"

Insurance provided by an employer may not be cash in hand but it is part of what a worker is paid. Everything in the wage/benefit package paid by an employer is a cost borne by the employer and passed on to the customer.

Do you believe pushing food items over a barcode reader is really worth $18 / hour plus full benefits? Most people don’t and will continue to go to places like Wal-Mart to pay a lower price for the same goods. Remember this includes people that are being paid a less than $18 an hour.
00camper Offline
#2 Posted: Fri, Feb 20 2004, 5:27 AM EST
Joined: 07-11-2003
Posts: 2,326
Don't forget that the strike is also against Kroger in parts of West Virginia near the Kentucky line.

I also agree that its really about wages. People don't like being told they are getting less of anything or that one of their favorite things is going to cost more in the future.
donutboy2000 Offline
#3 Posted: Sun, Feb 22 2004, 2:01 PM EST
Joined: 11-20-2001
Posts: 25,000
The strike is also about WalMart. The companies fear that WalMart will eventually drive them out of business.
00camper Offline
#4 Posted: Sun, Feb 22 2004, 4:34 PM EST
Joined: 07-11-2003
Posts: 2,326
Wal-Mart is probably the most efficient company on the Fortune 500. Wal-Mart will try almost any product but only keeps carrying what sells well with nearly every store carrying a slightly different variety of merchandise based on the preferences of local shoppers.

Please don't misunderstand the nature of my comment. I don't think Wal-Mart is the BEST grocery and general merchandise store.

When most people are trying to achieve a reasonable balance between price, service, quality and convenience, Wal-Mart is a good choice. After all, a box of Wheaties is the same commodity whether its at Wal-Mart or Kroger. If Wal-Mart sells it for less money then Wal-Mart will probably sell more Wheaties, and the less efficient stores like Kroger will fade into history.

I know I'm probably going to hear from some of you who say that Wal-Mart's pay is too low and their insurance plan stinks and so forth. The response to that argument is that Wal-Mart wouldn't be the world's largest retailer without employees and the last time I checked those employees could choose to work somewhere else, like Kroger, if they chose to do so.
poprocz Offline
#5 Posted: Sun, Feb 22 2004, 7:01 PM EST
Joined: 12-10-2003
Posts: 273
Want argue with that, Makes to much damn good sense.
CWFoster Offline
#6 Posted: Sun, Feb 22 2004, 7:19 PM EST
Joined: 12-12-2003
Posts: 5,414
Sounds like standard market-force economics to me! I guess the liberals will suggest that the less efficient retailers should be subsidised to prevent the loss of jobs and benefits.
tailgater Offline
#7 Posted: Mon, Feb 23 2004, 4:04 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Actually, when it comes to corporate subsidies I believe the republicans beat the democrats hand down.
The dems, on the other hand, push their money and effort into social programs and love the press this grocery strike is getting.
The union voice is loud in America, and as more and more companies put a portion of the insurance burden on their employees, it becomes more and more likely that folks will indeed push for socialized medicine.
Sure, they won't use the word "socialized", but that's what it will be.

And what makes this so unfathomable is the fact that EVERYBODY agrees our government is the most unorganized entity in the world. Yet, we somehow feel that government control of the medical industry will magically restore it to "health".

JonR Offline
#8 Posted: Mon, Feb 23 2004, 6:15 AM EST
Joined: 02-19-2002
Posts: 9,740
Hey you got any avocadoes for sale, huh ? JonR
Gb Offline
#9 Posted: Mon, Feb 23 2004, 6:38 AM EST
Joined: 03-20-2003
Posts: 260
Health Insurance is not a right to be bestowed upon you simply becuase you have a job. As indicated above, it's a benefit SOME companies extend to their employees. People still need to take responsibility for themselves. If the company they are working for doesn't offer health insurance, then either got some on your own (as millions of small business owners do) or get a different job.

With regards to WalMart... I agree that they are a very efficient company and demand that of their vendors as well. There was a great article in "Fast Company" about the dangers of getting in bed with WalMart. Because they demand so much and demand it at lower prices, companies trying to compete are being run into the ground. I can't go into all the details, but you can search for the article online... it's worth a read. I choose not to go there any more after reading the article... don't want to feed the giant.
Gb Offline
#10 Posted: Mon, Feb 23 2004, 7:08 AM EST
Joined: 03-20-2003
Posts: 260
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html

Here is that article...
Thom Offline
#11 Posted: Mon, Feb 23 2004, 8:13 AM EST
Joined: 12-08-2003
Posts: 6,117
I worked in the grocery industry for over 15 years and I can tell you that those checkers and top wage workers are worth every penny. Especially when you consider that jouneyman(person?) wage comes after at least 5 years of full time work, but there are very few full time employees in a grocery store. Most every job in a store is part time, between 8 to 31 hours. 32 hours or more is considered full time. It took me 9 years to get top wage. Plus in order to qualify for benefits you have to work an average of 20 hours a week. Depending on how sales are doing, you may qualify for benifits one month and then none the next. I thankfully no longer work in this industry.

After talking to some friends who still work in grocery stores here in Washington, their contract came up before California's, and they decided to settle, instead of striking, for NO raises for the next 4 years, plus that have to pay an increased amount (I don't recall the sum, but it's more than $20 a month) for medical benefits that will increase yearly. So, they are effectively taking a pay cut for the next 4 years. These are just a couple of the major issues, but you get the idea. Next this same contract was taken to the California area. You see what they thought of it.
Charlie Offline
#12 Posted: Mon, Feb 23 2004, 8:36 AM EST
Joined: 06-16-2002
Posts: 39,751
The union wants to have the Medical benefits fully paid by the stores and Von's, Albertsons, etc want to have an employee contribution around 20 bucks or so a month! Is this worth 5 months of strike? You decide, as I am totally against unions!

Charlie
00camper Offline
#13 Posted: Mon, Feb 23 2004, 9:17 AM EST
Joined: 07-11-2003
Posts: 2,326
You are kidding, right? Is the strike really about $20 a month? My SHARE of the health insurance premium is more than $200 a month and I'm glad its not more. Bunch of whiners.
Cigarick Offline
#14 Posted: Mon, Feb 23 2004, 10:24 AM EST
Joined: 07-28-2002
Posts: 3,078
Scanning bananas is not exactly rocket science. They don't have to memorize every price in the store anymore ("Price check on five, please"). A supervisor ("Put that carton of potato salad over there, then order some more gouda cheese.") can make up to $26 an hour. I've always paid the premium and co-pay on my health insurance. They've enjoyed unusually great benefits for a long time, but with increased competition and the flood of workers from south of the border who are willing to work for lower wages and lesser benefits, I'd say the party is pretty much over. Time for everybody to haul their own weight.
ducati996 Offline
#15 Posted: Mon, Feb 23 2004, 1:18 PM EST
Joined: 01-02-2000
Posts: 3,475
On a totally unrelated note.....did you know that the chinese worker making 10 cents an hour is making 10 times more than his family on the farm? Wish I still had the web address of the article.
00camper Offline
#16 Posted: Mon, Feb 23 2004, 3:49 PM EST
Joined: 07-11-2003
Posts: 2,326
Ducati,

Your point is dead on with what we're discussing in this thread. The left complains that workers in other countries are being "exploited" because of the "low wages" they are being paid by American companies. The thing they never say is the exact point you bring out: the factory worker in China earning 10 cents an hour is making a fortune by the local standard.

Thanks Ducati.
Gene363 Offline
#17 Posted: Tue, Feb 24 2004, 11:43 AM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,838
00camper

Well said!

Users browsing this topic
Guest
Back to Top